Supreme Court upholds contempt conviction of Senior Advocate Yatin Oza for scandalous remarks against High Court despite apology and remorse.
Case Name: Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu, High Court of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 470
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 May 2026
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Yatin Narendra Oza, a Senior Advocate and President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association, for criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court found that Oza had made unfounded, scurrilous, and scandalous remarks against the High Court and its registry in a press conference, including branding the Court a “gambling den” without any substantial evidence. Despite his apology, the Court observed that his repeated misconduct and lack of contrition in past instances warranted punishment. The Court confirmed that the High Court had rightly rejected his apology, as it lacked sincerity, and emphasized that such behavior cannot be condoned in order to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
Summary: The Appellant, Yatin Narendra Oza, made defamatory and unfounded allegations against the Gujarat High Court and its Registry in a live press conference on 5 June 2020, alleging corruption, favoritism, and forum shopping. These comments were deemed to scandalize and lower the authority of the judiciary. The Gujarat High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, and Oza was found guilty. He tendered an unconditional apology, citing the emotional stress due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and grievances from junior advocates regarding the non-circulation of matters. However, the High Court rejected his apology, citing his past conduct and the seriousness of the allegations. The Supreme Court also upheld the rejection of the apology, stating that a history of similar misconduct, including prior contempt proceedings in 2006 and 2016, reinforced the need for firm action.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order convicting the appellant for contempt of court. The Court emphasized that Oza’s remarks, though issued under emotional distress, were calculated and intentional attacks on the institution of the judiciary, not mere lapses in language. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reject his apology, which had been offered at a late stage and was deemed insincere. The appellant’s professional and personal hardships due to his actions were noted, but it was determined that upholding the integrity of the judiciary required that such conduct be addressed firmly.